Why the Cato/Reason Crowd Hates Ron

Y

Yvonne

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2007
Messages
137
Do you ever wonder where so-called "libertarian" entities like Cato and Reason get their money from and who's really calling their shots? Or what their real agenda is? David Gordon has written an outstanding expose which answers those questions and much more. You'll learn about more about Ron's past experience......and why he continues to fight for the true libertarian ideals of smaller, constitutional government. It's worth your time to read it in its entirety:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon37.html
 
I'm not so sure Reason doesn't like Ron, but I know CATO isn't his biggest fan. Even Ron said this to me when I met him last week. When I dropped by the Reason headquarters in DC, in the other hand, I heard no animosity towards Ron by anyone there and all of them were fans and were down with the rEVOLution.
 
"Legislators who wish to restore the gold standard, Ron Paul chief among them, are shunned and defamed."​

HAHAHAHA.

Cato published Dr. Paul's The Case for Gold, the Gold Commission's minority report and has invited Dr. Paul to speak at Cato (I know because I had to fill in for him when Carol took ill suddenly)--I've also spoken at Mises (most recently last Austrian Scholars Conference a few weeks ago by their request).

But, yes, of course, there are personality conflicts and differing agendas within organizations, and Cato is no different. Austrians differ on the gold standard even (with a "free banking" debate prominently archived on the Mises.org site), and Friedman had said publicly that we would have been better off had the Fed never existed (and Cato published Anna Schwartz's call to abolish the ESF and help end discretionary monetary policy).

There are supporters of Dr. Paul at Cato and obviously at Reason (David Weigel most prominently); and yes, there are people who don't. To generalize everyone by one association is a group rights mentality contrary to our goals.

Hopefully our movement will realize that if we are to survive--and thrive--we need to move past pissing matches from generations past. Dr. Paul's inspired rEVOLution should be more than just picking fights for dead people.
 
Bradley in DC said:
"Legislators who wish to restore the gold standard, Ron Paul chief among them, are shunned and defamed."​

HAHAHAHA.

Cato published Dr. Paul's The Case for Gold, the Gold Commission's minority report and has invited Dr. Paul to speak at Cato (I know because I had to fill in for him when Carol took ill suddenly)--I've also spoken at Mises (most recently last Austrian Scholars Conference a few weeks ago by their request).
Click to expand...

Yes, that was about 25 years ago. Something from 25 years ago that would NEVER be repeated today -- of that you can be absolutely certain -- proves what, exactly?

Gordon's article is right on. And I'm sure plenty of people would like to let bygones be bygones, but the Koch machine obviously isn't among them.
 
NightOwl said:
Yes, that was about 25 years ago. Something from 25 years ago that would NEVER be repeated today -- of that you can be absolutely certain -- proves what, exactly?

Gordon's article is right on. And I'm sure plenty of people would like to let bygones be bygones, but the Koch machine obviously isn't among them.
Click to expand...

Um, no, they invited Dr. Paul to speak when I was working for him (1997-2001). My point is that yes there are some people (both at Cato and at Mises) who want to perpetuate pissing matches, and there are others at both who don't.

What do you think is the better way to move us forward?
 
Last edited:
Bradley in DC said:
Um, no, they invited Dr. Paul to speak when I was working there (1997-2001). My point is that yes there are some people (both at Cato and at Mises) who want to perpetuate pissing matches, and there are others at both who don't.

What do you think is the better way to move us forward?
Click to expand...

Why do liberals call it a conservative thinktank?
 
FireofLiberty said:
I'm not so sure Reason doesn't like Ron
Click to expand...

Matt Welch (of Reason Magazine) is the one who started the smear campaign against Ron on New Hampshire primary day.

Bradley in DC said:
"Legislators who wish to restore the gold standard, Ron Paul chief among them, are shunned and defamed."

HAHAHAHA.
Click to expand...

Don't be a douche, Brad.

Bradley in DC said:
But, yes, of course, there are personality conflicts and differing agendas within organizations, and Cato is no different.
Click to expand...
This is so far beyond an understatement that I don't know what to call it. "personality conflicts"??
Come on.... they did their best to contribute to the smear campaign without overstepping their bounds as a think tank. This goes way beyond personality conflicts.

I do, however, agree with the part about stopping the conflict where it is instead of carrying it on with new generations. From my blog:
And to other young libertarians:
Take note of this ridiculous war and what it’s costing us, as libertarians. Remember that someday we will be the leaders of this movement and that it will be up to us to ally and accomplish things without letting past disputes get in the way. Don’t fall into the trap of collective thinking by hating various libertarians because of the organizations they work for or because of who they were taught by. Analyze each person based on his or her individual views, find common ground, and work to promote freedom. Let ours be the generation of libertarians, and not of ancient rifts that prevent us from doing something great.​
 
Last edited:
brunner said:
Matt Welch (of Reason Magazine) is the one who started the smear campaign against Ron on New Hampshire primary day.
Click to expand...

The newsletter issue has been dogging Dr. Paul for years--and Reason sat on the story for many weeks knowing TNR was going to do a hit piece--Jamie gets the blame--in order to defer to the official campaign (which was a mistake in hindsight).

Don't be a douche, Brad.
Click to expand...

For those readers who don't know, Chris and I are friends--even when acting like feminine hygiene products--who have hosted the other at our places.

I do, however, agree with the part about stopping the conflict where it is instead of carrying it on with new generations. From my blog:
And to other young libertarians:
Take note of this ridiculous war and what it’s costing us, as libertarians. Remember that someday we will be the leaders of this movement and that it will be up to us to ally and accomplish things without letting past disputes get in the way. Don’t fall into the trap of collective thinking by hating various libertarians because of the organizations they work for or because of who they were taught by. Analyze each person based on his or her individual views, find common ground, and work to promote freedom. Let ours be the generation of libertarians, and not of ancient rifts that prevent us from doing something great.​
Click to expand...

+1

(and knowing something of the preceding histories can help, yes)
 
Last edited:
I've found that the individuals who take part in Cato, who are each able to speak only for themselves, have some pretty varied views. Some of them sound pretty libertarian, while others sound downright neocon. There's definitly a pro-war contingent at Cato, for example. A lot of people are surprised, I think, as this didn't exist there two decades ago. Cato is a mixed bag.

As far as Reason mag goes, I'm not sure what has created the perception that they have any ill will towards Dr. Paul. I've spent some time talking to a few of their more prolific writers and never gotten that impression.
 
Upon reading this article on lrc, though, it looks like the author seems to be holding a 27 year grudge that's just coming out.
The LP/Cato/Rothbard split is old news, I was a baby when it happened, and half the people involved are now dead. If we can't move on past that stuff, I don't know what to say. :p
 
Neocons are the new republicans. The old republicans (Barr, etc) are trying to be the new libertarians, since the old libertarians worked so hard for ballot access already. And what a wonderful time for that, since so many Libertarians have worn out their shoes (and hearts)promoting the new neocon party recently. Cato, pfft. whatever.
 
I wish it were just a pissing match, but characterizing the situation in that way completely ignores what has happened.

The reality is that when Rothbard co-founded CATO, the meaning of "libertarian" included "anti-war", "anti-Fed" and "anti-state".

Thanks to the Kochtopus, this is no longer true. For many years now, CATO has been advocating a state-friendly neoconservative abortion of an ideology while continuing to call themselves libertarian. Thanks to them, it's now fashionable to call yourself a libertarian while advocating war, a federal reserve, certain taxes, school vouchers, and various other government interventions.

My beef with CATO has nothing to do with personal rifts, but the fact that they've destroyed the word libertarian.
 
mdh said:
I've found that the individuals who take part in Cato, who are each able to speak only for themselves, have some pretty varied views. Some of them sound pretty libertarian, while others sound downright neocon. There's definitly a pro-war contingent at Cato, for example. A lot of people are surprised, I think, as this didn't exist there two decades ago. Cato is a mixed bag.

As far as Reason mag goes, I'm not sure what has created the perception that they have any ill will towards Dr. Paul. I've spent some time talking to a few of their more prolific writers and never gotten that impression.
Click to expand...

That's why we need "big tent" organizations but I believe that the leadership should always be hardline libertarian.
 
Stay away from the Beltway, boys. It has a way of turning idealism into utilitarianism, then statism.

The Cato Institute is a ward of the state.
 
Bradley in DC said:
Aha! More proof "Treason" is out to get Dr. Paul. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Indeed.

I'm not a big fan of Reason because I feel the quality of the writing isn't fantastic, and they seem to grasp at straws to look mainstream. They wrote an article proclaiming Bill Richardson to be the best hope for libertarians, and I just got fed up with it.

However, they ain't enemies.
 
I wish Rand was alive today so she could insult people with accusations of irrationality.

She campaigned hard for Barry Goldwater you know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
The Many Roads to Liberty
Replies
0
Views
803
PAF
PAF
C
Why Libertarians Loathe Tariffs
Replies
3
Views
866
TheTexan
TheTexan
PAF
The Nervousness of Corporate Surveillance Pseudo-Libertarians
Replies
0
Views
745
PAF
PAF
PAF
Javier Milei Versus the Antiwar Cause
Replies
7
Views
1K
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
PAF
The Hidden Agenda of Davos
Replies
1
Views
837
PAF
PAF
Back
Top